Can You Claim on the Building’s Insurance?

If you own a leasehold flat, in what circumstances can you claim on the building’s insurance and what is covered by that insurance? The answer can normally be found in your lease.

The first step with most leasehold problems is to look at the specific terms in the lease. The lease sets out the rights, duties and obligations of each party to the lease and, whilst many leases contain similar clauses, they are rarely identical.

Insurance arrangements are therefore usually determined by what the tenant and landlord agree in the lease. There are some general points that can be made, however, as many leases contain similar clauses.

Typically, the lease requires the landlord to arrange and pay for the building’s insurance and recover the cost from the tenants through the service charge.

Only occasionally, usually only in buildings converted into two flats, will the leaseholders themselves be responsible for insuring the whole or part of the building.

The lease will usually determine that the building must be insured i.e. all parts of the building that are not demised, which will typically include the structure and common areas.

The lease will usually also dictate what risks must be insured against, such as fire, flood, natural disasters, escape of water and subsistence.

A well drafted lease should cover the risks required to be covered by most mortgage lenders as set out in the Council of Mortgage Lender’s Handbook.

Whilst it is often the building that is insured by the landlord, if a lessee suffers a leak within their own flat a claim can usually be made.

However a negligent act could vitiate an insurance claim because some insurance policies and leases dictate that a claim cannot be made if the damage is due to the tenant’s negligence.

If a lessee failed to turn off the bath taps and this caused water damage, for example, any claim would probably fail.

If a claim is made on the insurance policy successfully, there may be a question as to who pays the insurance excess. Unfortunately, most leases fail to clearly determine this.

The tenant who is responsible for the claim will normally be required to pay the excess. If the damage is purely accidental, however, such as a burst pipe, then the service charge fund may be used to pay the excess.

Post navigation

Google Reviews

James Naylor and his Team were fantastic in solving a leasehold issue for me.
The Team have extensive knowledge of how to tackle the problem in hand and am very pleased with the outcome they achieved for me.
They are the firm to instruct in all leasehold matters.

We recently had to get litigation advise for the first time and was recommended to use James at Naylor. The entire experience with James and Dominika was great. They were very responsive to our situation, always available to discuss matters on the phone and commercial with their advise. Due to the confidence that James inspired us with, we were able to take action quickly and reach our desired outcome. Happy to recommend them and would certainly use them again.

Dominika, James and the team at Naylor solicitors successfully dealt with my mortgage fraud case for me. This was a complex legal issue which required persistence, accuracy and attention to detail over a multi-year period. It resulted in a reversal in the charge against my property with the land registry, and full reimbursement of my legal costs incurred.
Thankyou Dominika and James for your valued assistance in this matter!

I am so grateful we had Nick Scurfield working on our case. He was extremely calm, professional, personable and put a lot of thought into all of the advice he gave us, and was always very thorough. It was a complex and stressful situation, and Nick helped to take the stress out of it and gives us the support and guidance we needed, with care and empathy. I highly recommend Nick and CG Naylor.

Jennifer and her colleagues at CG Naylor represented my daughter recently in a civil case.
She very quickly grasped the complexities of the case especially when given only a limited time span.
In company with other colleagues in the office she was able to present my daughter's situation clearly and concisely.
Whilst in the High Court and later at mediation in conjunction with the barrister and the claimants representatives she was forthright and compassionate.
Whilst I have limited experience in civil matters my interpretation of the service received by CG Naylor is that it was excellent.
John Hooker